Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 6, 2014 1:30pm-2:01pm PDT

1:30 pm
has made a motion. president chiu? chiu: i support this and i don't support and i don't believe we are achieving what it is set to achieve on this motion. >> can we take supervisor wiener's motion without objection? okay. so moved. on supervisor yee's amendment as amended. supervisor tang? next on the roster? we have supervisor yee's motion now to amend for rh 1d and it's been
1:31 pm
amended and approved by the full board by supervisor wiener and taken discussion on that 1st amendment by supervisor yee. >>supervisor katy tang: no comment on the amendment. >> supervisor cohn? >>supervisor malia cohen: you mentioned there were not many units in an rh 1d zone. how do you know that and if you can identify your source? >> just from a few conversations i have had and i do not have the data on that. >> is there a particular staff that i can follow up with to find the answer? >> no. >> okay. thanks. >> supervisor avalos was next? >>supervisor john avalos: i took my name off the roster. do we want to vote on the
1:32 pm
amendment. >> discussion on the amendment. we have two amendments offered by supervisor yee. let's go with that amendment now. supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you. i want to speak on the amendment before us. i sympathize with the amendment that supervisor yee moved forward. we did get a few e-mails from others from regarding rh 1d to remove this from legislation. i don't spupt at support that because i don't believe there is a reason for this legislation. if we were able to get an actual physical reason, policy reason about the type of residential housing that makes it difficult for them to legalize it would make sense. this is purely coming from a motion that the neighborhood
1:33 pm
would like to see and i think it's completely reasonable for supervisor yee to make that request on behalf of the residents that he represents. i think that's where that comes from. on the second motion that supervisor yee has moved forward i do plan on supporting a pilot program. i actually appreciate the work that has gone into a path way to legalize in law units. it's something that has vexed the city for decades and it's clearly a source of income for many single family home owners and d, a source of affordable units here in san francisco. however, i have a lot of concerns about the legislation that is being introduced in having unintended consequences and mine is a scenario that i brought up at land use committee which again is that as we know many of the tennants that live in in law units has been as articulated as a shadow economy and
1:34 pm
therefore because of that probably more affordable tend to be our most vulnerable residents, non-english speaking and able to live in these units because they are affordable. i'm concerned for property owners go through the process of spending the money and then pay more property taxes and not be able to raise the rent on their tennants that many people won't opt in this program. yes, there is a pathway, but nothing in here to ensure that any home owners opt into this program. the only home owners wanting to legalize and hope the tennants don't report it to the rent board because it's an illegal
1:35 pm
unit and they won't be prohibited by the 10-year no fault eviction provision that was carefully put into this legislation. a pilot would make me feel more comfortable. it would allow the legislation to move through and see who are the home owners who decide to opt into this program and are we incentivize the wrong behavior. if this is something that is successful, those that preserving affordable housing units and supporting the type of tennants that i heard about at land use committee, then this is of course legislation that i would support to make permanent. i think there has to be an incentive program, a stick or carat to get home owners to legalize their units and it's something i don't see in legislation. i think a lot of protections were put in and i appreciate the work put in to protect many of these
1:36 pm
tennants. i'm worried the tennants we are trying to protect are not protected by this legislation. those were just some of my thoughts on a motion. i won't be the supporting the first motion but i will support the second motion to amend. >> okay. if no further discussion we'll have a roll call vote to amend. >> can you clarify which. we have no. 1 and 2. city clerk: mr. chairman, the 2nd amendment made by mr. yee has not been motioned yet. we are taking the vote on the prohibition of rh 1 districts. >> are we voting on the amendment that exclude rh 1d? >> correct. >> okay. wanted to be clear. >> [roll call vote taken]
1:37 pm
city clerk: chiu, no, farrell, yes, kim, no, supervisor tang, aye, wiener, aye, yee, campos, there are 5 ayes and 5 no. >> that motion fails. >> can we have a motion? >> i want to thank supervisor yee for the time you spent on this. i understand the challenges that you have faced in your district. i have had conversations with many of constituents on this. colleagues, this is a pilot program that would not only
1:38 pm
exempt out major swaus of our city in rh 1 and 2. it would create a 50-unit limit. i think we can meet supervisor avalos in xelz yoer. let me take a moment to respond that some of the comments that supervisor kim has made that we should perhaps add more carrots or sticks to this legislation. we contemplated whether to make this a mandatory regime. the property is we don't know exactly what the cost are going to be to home owners and rather than enforcing home owners to
1:39 pm
legalize without being able to assist someone without incrementing we thought about this volunteer program which is almost a pilot program because we'll see in the coming years whether it's a few thousand folks and everyone gets do do this on a volunteer basis. because of that, i won't be able to support this amendment on the specifics of this program but i do support his work on this amendment. >> supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: i will not support this amendment. i do have to the chair two clarifying questions for supervisor yee. i think this is a draft, it says rh 1 and 2, i think it means to say
1:40 pm
h r 1 and rh 1d if i'm not mistaken. >> you are right. >> then the second thing through the chair supervisors yee, as supervisor yee that same findings that were removed from other amendment. >> okay. so i would then make offer two amendments to correct rh 2 to rh 1d to findings in the other amendment. >> any discussion on that motion to amend? >> we need a second. >> second by supervisor
1:41 pm
cohn. >> supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: we are taking a pause. the 50 applicants 50 years from now, it could be 2 weeks from now. there is no realtime limit. it's not 6 months. it is what it is when we get to 50. that will give us an opportunity to look at if there are any unintended consequences. that's one of the things i'm concerned with in this amendment that i'm offering. >> supervisor tang? >>supervisor katy tang: i wanted to speak on the other one. >> okay. we'll wait on that supervisor cohn? supervisor malia cohen: i just want to speak to the motion about the pilot program. i believe that property owners who are going to proceed with
1:42 pm
the legalization need some certainty about the program which is why i believe that we could not legislate on the scenario. i don't think it's necessary at this time. i'm willing to revisit this issue after 6 months once the department provides us with an evaluation of the program. thank you. >> supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: for me it's not number of units or year. i don't think as many home owners will sign up for this program. i can't see any homeowner signing up for this program. my concern is making sure we have a way if there
1:43 pm
are on the negative side that i'm speaking of if there is a way to temporarily halt this legislation. obviously all of this is speculation. any other one concern is again the only people that will be incentivised to do this is people who believe they can make more money from this than they are currently. the home owners and the tennants we are trying to protect, they don't gain anything by legalized. i'm concerned that we are happy to help those focus which is why i would give legislation a shot. is there another way for us to have some type of points in this legislation when we can have that motion. i know you said there will be checks
1:44 pm
in the process but something more than that which will allow us to check and let's keep moving this forward or if it is that the home owners that are coming into this program isn't what we interested intended that we have an opportunity to halt this program. there doesn't have to be 50 units. my question is to the author. >> a couple of thoughts. first of all, i have heard criticisms of this legislation both from folks who don't think anyone is going to take advantage of on the one hand and folks who think there is going to be rampid concern about being evicted. those are contradictory. what i would suggest again the reason we propose a voluntary regime to
1:45 pm
see how it goes. if there is a monitoring report after 1 year or 2-year come back to decide that we need to tweak this and i suspect what i think is likely to happen is the fact that we may not be providing enough financial assistance to home owners to legalize that means we may not see the legalization we want. supervisor avalos pointed out that we may think about an incrementing mechanism to assist hope -- home owners and in that regime we may make it mandatory. i would be willing and i mentioned to supervisor yee if in 2 years we want to have another hearing to take a pause, but what i don't want to do as i want to echo, we want to
1:46 pm
legalize units. if they think this is a pilot that is going to end in 2 weeks or a year, they may not want to get involved now. we want to make it available in the market ofn terms of what's permissible. i'm open to that if you would like to see that happen. >> supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: i want to thank you for that offer. my main concern is for the project to have a real check in to see what is we are having. that's why when i say 50, depending on the motivations of individuals who are in this situation. it could happen in 2 months or it may not happen for 10 years in terms of people wanting to take advantage of this legislation. if supervisor
1:47 pm
chiu can do check ins, i'm willing to withdraw my amendment. >> supervisors campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you. it's been a very interesting discussion. i want to thank supervisor chiu and yee for all the work gone into this. i do support this legislation. let me say that i support it primarily because i have heard from a number of tenant advocates who believe that this legislation could be used as a tool thigh it makes sense to see that happen. i do share concerns that i don't know if this legislation will end up doing much and i don't
1:48 pm
know if people will take advantage of it to the extent that you are talking about people having their property values reassessed if they go through process. i don't know how many people will end up choosing to do that. but i'm willing to take the chance to see if this would work but i have a concern in the end that not much will come out of this. >> supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: are we voting on the amendment? >> any discussion on the e. manet. to -- amendment. if this amendment passes it will go back to the planning commission? >> that's right. if the amendment is adopted it will
1:49 pm
require the material under the charter the planning code modifications this amendment would both prohibit legalization in hr 1 and rh 1d in rh 2 and 3 zoning district that it requires additional planning review. >>supervisor john avalos: i believe there is a withdrawal of the motion? >> if supervisor chiu builds in language to assure to look at check in points that i'm willing to withdraw my amendment. >> supervisor yee if i can read the language in the requirement, that there is a point every year and every six 6 months for the first 3 years after the effective date. the zoning administrator and the
1:50 pm
director of the inspection shall issue a report on the dwelling unit during this program and after 3 years the report will include in the city's housing report and screening forms and building permit applications filed for the first 3 years copies of this report will be submitted to the board and the mayor and controller. when you say what can we do to strengthen this, i'm open to hearing sfrugsz -- suggestions from you on that. if we want to hear a report, that might be appropriate. i'm happy to get feedback from you on what you consider appropriate to do that. >> i think to have a hearing would be appropriate. >> so at the end of 1 year and at the end of 2 years? >> end of 1 year, end of 2 years. >> i would support that. >> i would withdraw my
1:51 pm
amendment. >> can i just make a general motion that we include a hearing requirement after the issuance of the 1 year and 2-year report and mr. deputy city attorney can we require the board of supervisors hold a hearing on this topic. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. the answer is yes, you can make that amendment today and pass the ordinance on first read. generally, the board procedures are, we try not to prescribe board procedures in ordinances because the board's hearing process is generally within the board's authority, but of course it's your policy decision as to whether you want to include that in an ordinance and bind the board i year from now. >> i'm happy to support this legislation. i'm happy to include a hearing requirement in one and 2 years. so happy
1:52 pm
to make that motion. >> okay, president chiu has made a motion and second by wiener. can we take that without objection? so moved. supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. supervisor farrell, for me this legislation is a long time coming and complete with what we want to do with it. i do appreciate president chiu bringing it forward. i live in a district that has seen it's population grow by 6,000 residents from 2000-2010 census. my area is redistricted to a smaller size. i moved to compels yoer from the district in 1999. i
1:53 pm
moved fl from the compels 84 excelsior district. we have seen incredible dramatic effects in population change. we have seen growth of about 6 thousand people but not have seen 6,000 units being built except for families being doubled up into houses or people put in a garage or a car doubled out. people living in these homes they have kids
1:54 pm
going to school in the city of san francisco unified school district and they go to school with my children and there are everyday san franciscans and they deserve the right to housing in this city. we should be looking at how we can make sure of that right can be extended. and not just extended through whatever dilapidated unit we can provide but how we can bring units that are dilapidated up to code. i believe this legislation is going in the right direction towards that end. more needs to be done for that. i appreciate there are principles that i talked about this year or last year when i was looking at doing legalization of in laws that we are trying to an abide by making sure that housing can remain affordable and extending protections to tennants and making housing
1:55 pm
more habitable and healthy and looking to homeowner stabilization and working class families that supervisor breed was talking about who own their homes and have their homes for decades who are maybe janitors or sector teachers and this is one way to carve out their income to pay for their mortgage. we have seen in parts of san francisco a huge number of defaults and foreclosures that hasn't be addressed in this city. that we do not have a program that can help enable households to be able to remain in san francisco when they are very marginably able to afford it and people have
1:56 pm
left because they no longer can afford in this city. through a battle i put language in the housing trust fund that would lead to stabilization of housing. it was actually originally the intent was to have a home own -- homeowner stabilization fund. which is part of prop c. would allow for home owners to have funds to bring their homes up to code and to be able to do seismic retro fit and bring your home to code. it's by having access to the prop c funds. and unfortunately the mayor's
1:57 pm
office of housing while focused on building affordable housing is important is not creating the program that will be able to address the defaults and foreclosures happens in san francisco and in the lack of ability we have in the southern part of san francisco that are leading to housing units that are not up to code. while i believe this legislation is incomplete, i'm happy to work on it to help create the incentive that is lacking here. i have actually talked to the mayor's of housing in this very room about the lack of attention they have sgliefrjtsdz -- p support the southeast of san francisco. something has to be done about it glathsdz today talked about it. i want to make sure we can look into
1:58 pm
this. i think this legislation will open the doorway for that to happen. i really appreciate this legislation coming forward. i also want to appreciate the work of asian and vantage justice who talked to many households that have in law units that are secondary units. they found that a great number of the people living in these households are immigrants and transit dependent. that they are typical san franciscans that you find in the city of san francisco unified school district which is mostly low income, people that have the right to san francisco and we should be creating mechanisms for them to stay here. i appreciate the legislation and look forward to it passing today. i hope it does because it's something that san franciscans really need. let me say this, i heard from
1:59 pm
many people in my district who would love to see in laws go away. i have thought about that. making them go away is to say to the thousands of people who live in them that you no longer belong in san francisco. that doesn't make any sense. we into ed to make sure that people who are living in san francisco who are contributing to our economy and part of our school district can stay here and make it their city of their own. thank you. >> supervisors tang? >>supervisor katy tang: thank you for your comments. i believe we have a huge number of those in law units. when my parents first moved to san francisco, my family was a family of four and we lived in the sunset district. i know with immigrants with not much income that is only one of the ways that we are able to live here in san francisco. with that said, i do want to appreciate supervisor chiu in
2:00 pm
his office for tackling this difficult issue. i do appreciate there is a prescreening process that really does not provide penalties and it is a volunteer program, however, i think that where i have hesitation is actually through some of the comments that were expressed by supervisor kim and i know we have different districts and many of the issues you brought up i share as well. i don't know what are the incentives for many of the property owners who want to take advantage of this program. what has been mentioned already is the pass tlus. -- pass throughs. many of these in law units need help with their mortgage payment and they do not have the financial resources to make these improvements. no. 2, something that hasn't be brought up much today